Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

Find studies

Showing 701–725 of 777 studies with an author at University of California, San Francisco (US) (page 29 of 32) · 28,180 in the whole library · How the 0–100 score works

Download bibliography of the first 500 of these studies, in this order: BibTeX (.bib) · RIS (.ris)

Browse by subject, author or institution

Each number is how many studies that link shows, with your other filters kept.

A note on reading research. One study is rarely the final word.

We try to note the size of a study, whether it was in humans or animals, and how early-stage the finding is. If a summary here doesn't make that clear, treat it with extra caution and check the original source.

hexanucleotide repeat expansions (HRE) and WMH in bvFTD patients. bvFTD and svPPA are associated with elevated WMH burden independent of CVRF. 3 key findings →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: low

Interaction of the amino- and carboxyl-terminal domains in apolipoprotein (apo) E, referred to as domain interaction, is predicted to be more pronounced in apoE4 than in apoE3 and to underlie the association of apoE4 with Alzheimer and cardiovascular diseases. 2 key findings →

Evidence: low

Recent high-profile failures of Alzheimer disease treatments at the clinical trial stage have led to renewed efforts to identify and test novel interventions for Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD). 5 key findings →

Evidence: high

Alzheimer disease blood biomarkers and cognition in midlife

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 42 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

Older age, White race, APOE ε4 carrier, and diabetes were associated with biomarker levels indicative of higher AD risk (lower Aβ42/40; higher p-tau217, p-tau217/Aβ42, NfL, and GFAP). 5 key findings →

Participants: 1,356 Evidence: low

Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging of brain amyloid beta is now clinically available in several countries including the United States and the United Kingdom, but not Canada. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Macrophage recognition of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium leads to a cascade of signaling events, including the activation of Src family and Syk kinases and the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which are critical for host innate defense during early stages of bacterial infection. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

Out of Pocket Costs for People with Dementia: A Comparison Across Insurance Types

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Innovation in Aging 2025-12-01

Among PWD with Medicaid, out-of-pocket costs for nursing homes and assisted living facilities were significantly higher (60%) compared to those TM (33%) and MA (30%). 5 key findings →

Design: cohort study Evidence: moderate

Higher teacher‐student ratio was associated with greater gray matter volume (β = 6.25, 95% CI: 1.57, 10.92) but was not associated hippocampal volume (β = ‐0.01, 95% CI: ‐0.14, 0.11), ventricular volume (β = ‐0.04, 95% CI: ‐0.13, 0.04), or white matter hyperintensity (β = ‐0.02, 95% CI: ‐0.31, 0.26) (Table 2). 5 key findings →

Participants: 450 Evidence: moderate

Age-related hearing loss and dementia risk across the lifespan: mechanisms, equity, and prevention

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 41 out of 100. Neuroscience 2025-08-28

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) has emerged as a significant and potentially modifiable risk factor for neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer's disease. 1 key finding →

Evidence: low

Early detection of abnormal neurodegeneration amidst normal cognitive aging is crucial. 1 key finding →

Design: cross-sectional Evidence: moderate

Twenty-six percent of eligible ED users contacted elected for study enrollment. 5 key findings →

Participants: 160 Evidence: low

A total of 51 patients with AD, age (median: 73 years) and 53 cognitively normal subjects (median age: 69) were included. 5 key findings →

Participants: 51 Evidence: low

BackgroundClinician communication at the time of a dementia diagnosis often inadequately addresses patient and caregiver needs. 5 key findings →

Participants: 21 Evidence: low

Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q), and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale plus National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center-Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration module (NACC-FTLD). 5 key findings →

Participants: 168 Evidence: low

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration: epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. CNS drugs 2010-05-01

Frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) is a clinically and pathologically heterogeneous syndrome, characterized by progressive decline in behaviour or language associated with degeneration of the frontal and anterior temporal lobes. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

The human amyloid beta protein is the major constituent of the brain amyloid plaques found in Alzheimer disease. 4 key findings →

Evidence: low

About 65% of caregivers used at least one support service, with 52% utilizing home-based services and 52% community-based services. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Social determinants of pharmacological dementia management: results from IDEAS

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-12-01

We used multilevel logistic regression with a random site intercept to test whether the probability of change in management associated with social determinants, race/ADI interactions with amyloid‐positivity, comorbidities, and clinical setting, adjusting for demographics. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

Competency‐based training boosts dementia knowledge and skills in home care workers

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 40 out of 100. Alzheimer s & Dementia 2025-06-01

The training significantly improved caregivers' dementia knowledge and self-efficacy but did not reduce caregivers' distress and depression, nor decrease care recipients' emergency room visits and hospitalizations. 5 key findings →

Evidence: low

↑ Change the filters

Where “Free full text” comes from

Free full text links and the Full text may need a subscription label come from Unpaywall, Europe PMC and OpenAlex records of free copies, checked 10 Oct 2026. A study with neither is unknown, not paywalled. Show only studies that are free to read

How the 0–100 score works — and why some entries are capped

This is alzhub's own score. It is not an official metric, not an impact factor, and no journal, publisher or ranking body endorses it. We built it so that a reader who is not a scientist can tell a landmark trial from a conference abstract without having to already know the difference. Every point comes from one of 20 components, all of them printed on the study itself, so you can disagree with our arithmetic rather than having to trust the total.

  • Journal tier up to 10 pts
  • Journal's citation record up to 4 pts
  • Study design up to 12 pts
  • Strength of evidence up to 5 pts
  • Peer-review validation up to 10 pts
  • How recent up to 5 pts
  • Sample size up to 4 pts
  • Effect reported up to 3 pts
  • Studied in people up to 3 pts
  • Randomised / blinded up to 2 pts
  • Times cited up to 7 pts
  • Citations per year up to 5 pts
  • Impact for its field and year up to 6 pts
  • Cited by studies here up to 6 pts
  • Still being cited up to 4 pts
  • Senior author's track record up to 4 pts
  • Institution's track record up to 3 pts
  • Multi-centre collaboration up to 3 pts
  • Indexed in PubMed up to 2 pts
  • Free to read up to 2 pts

Journals are placed in ordered tiers, never given a numeric impact factor — we could not verify current impact factors from a source we control, and an invented one would be worse than none. Tier 1 is the top-tier general journals (NEJM, The Lancet, JAMA, Nature, Science, Nature Medicine); tier 2 is the leading specialty journals; tier 3 is every other peer-reviewed journal. A separate part scores how much the journal's own papers are cited, which tells the tier-3 journals apart.

Two rules we don't bend. First, we never fill in a missing value: if a record does not state a sample size or a design, that component scores zero, and if we simply have no data for a part, such as a citation count, that part is left out and the study is scored on the parts we could check. The study card says which. Second, anything that is not a peer-reviewed article is capped at 16/100 and carries a warning chip — so a conference abstract or a company press release can never outrank a peer-reviewed paper, no matter how good it looks.

We rank a rigorous null result — a good trial showing that something does not work — above an early positive finding. Someone deciding whether to buy a supplement is served by that, and the rigour is already counted by the design and journal components.

The score is computed from the published data alone and is reproducible: the same file always yields the same numbers.

See the whole rubric drawn out → — four charts covering all 28,180 studies: how the scores are spread and where the cap bites, which of the 20 components the library is strong and weak on, which subjects rest on stronger evidence, and what kinds of study each subject is actually built from.

What this library is — and isn't

This is a large sample of the Alzheimer's literature, not an exhaustive index of it. It holds 28,180 records, built mostly from automated pulls of Europe PMC (61.7% of the library) and OpenAlex (18.1%), plus smaller pulls from PubMed, Crossref and medRxiv. If a study, a drug, or a finding isn't here, that is not evidence it doesn't exist in the literature — it may simply not have been pulled in yet.

1,034 records (3.7% of the library) are not peer-reviewed — 962 of those are preprints posted before any journal review, and the rest are conference abstracts, regulatory notices and reports. Every study card on this page states its status plainly, and the score above is capped for anything that isn't a peer-reviewed article.

See the full, machine-readable breakdown of this library's coverage →

Newest studies, as a dated timeline →    Atom feed